mattadami
Munifex
Don’t mess with Cilician Armenians apparently. :|
Posts: 32 
|
Post by mattadami on Jan 24, 2018 20:41:59 GMT
Hi All,
I was wondering if any one has every played DBA 3.0 using Modified Armies with more than 12 Elements. The reason I ask this was I want to relight the battle between the Roman Legionaries and the Carthaginians under the Command Of Hannibal. Upon researching I discovered that some legionaries had an abnormally large size, due to extra allied contingents. So, I was thinking of using 14 Element Armies to represent these Abmorally sized Armies. The Victory condition would still be same of destroying a third of your opponents army (in this case 5 Elements). Also I’m assuming Hannibal’s Army was also Abnormally large at the beginning of the war as well, so he could have replacements for inevetable casualties and the army hadn’t suffered any attrition yet.
These are the Two modified Armies I was planning on using
II/33 Polybian Roman Army:
1x General (Cv)
1x Equites (Cv)
6x Hastati/principes (4Bd)
2x Allies (4Ax)
2x Triarii (Sp)
2x Velites (Ps)
II/32a Later Carthaginian Army 275-202 BC:
1x General (Cv)
1x Calvary (Cv)
2x Elephants (El)
2x Numidians (LH)
3x Poeni spearmen (Sp)
1x Spanish scutat(4Ax)
2x Spanish Scutati (4Ax)
1x African javelinmen (Ps)
1x Slingers (Ps)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 24, 2018 21:30:00 GMT
Hi All, I was wondering if any one has every played DBA 3.0 using Modified Armies with more than 12 Elements. The reason I ask this was I want to relight the battle between the Roman Legionaries and the Carthaginians under the Command Of Hannibal. Upon researching I discovered that some legionaries had an abnormally large size, due to extra allied contingents. So, I was thinking of using 14 Element Armies to represent these Abmorally sized Armies. The Victory condition would still be same of destroying a third of your opponents army (in this case 5 Elements). Also I’m assuming Hannibal’s Army was also Abnormally large at the beginning of the war as well, so he could have replacements for inevetable casualties and the army hadn’t suffered any attrition yet. These are the Two modified Armies I was planning on using II/33 Polybian Roman Army: 1x General (Cv) 1x Equites (Cv) 6x Hastati/principes (4Bd) 2x Allies (4Ax) 2x Triarii (Sp) 2x Velites (Ps) II/32a Later Carthaginian Army 275-202 BC: 1x General (Cv) 1x Calvary (Cv) 2x Elephants (El) 2x Numidians (LH) 3x Poeni spearmen (Sp) 1x Spanish scutat(4Ax) 2x Spanish Scutati (4Ax) 1x African javelinmen (Ps) 1x Slingers (Ps) I have several examples of uneven size engagements posted to the blog. The first link show the tests and the second link is a brief assessment of the battles. dbagora.blogspot.nl/2017/06/experimenting-with-army-size.html dbagora.blogspot.nl/2017/06/experimenting-with-army-size-assessment.html Two more examples of larger battles can be found at the ‘Index’ under historical matches for the Consular Army; these are Toletum 193 BC and the Tagus 220 BC. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 24, 2018 22:12:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 24, 2018 22:49:27 GMT
Just a thought: I have had oversize (13-15 element) armies in campaigns. Note, although 1/3 of the army as breakpoint seems logical, keeping the 4-element break point has its own merits.
It gives an advantage in dissimilar-sized battles thatlies between having a 12 element army, and say a 15 element army with breakpoint 5 elements.
Also, it is conceptually already in the rules, so it gives the bigger army an advantage (by being able to more easily get match ups and overlaps) but you simulate an unweildy force also by having it break at the same 4 elements. This means the smaller opponent isn't totally nerfed.
I find keeping the static victory condition is useful also for armies less than 12. It gives an 11 vs 7 matchup an interesting sense of purpose.
YMMV...
|
|
mattadami
Munifex
Don’t mess with Cilician Armenians apparently. :|
Posts: 32
|
Post by mattadami on Jan 24, 2018 23:16:47 GMT
Just a thought: I have had oversize (13-15 element) armies in campaigns. Note, although 1/3 of the army as breakpoint seems logical, keeping the 4-element break point has its own merits. It gives an advantage in dissimilar-sized battles thatlies between having a 12 element army, and say a 15 element army with breakpoint 5 elements. Also, it is conceptually already in the rules, so it gives the bigger army an advantage (by being able to more easily get match ups and overlaps) but you simulate an unweildy force also by having it break at the same 4 elements. This means the smaller opponent isn't totally nerfed. I find keeping the static victory condition is useful also for armies less than 12. It gives an 11 vs 7 matchup an interesting sense of purpose. YMMV... Thats very true. But, we shouldn’t be using over 12 Element Armies in our current campaigns. We kind of just want to mess around with slightly larger armies at the beginning to truelly evoke the feelings of the beginning of the 2nd Punic War. Afterwards the Armies should default back to regular 12 element Armies. But what you said about keeping the static Victory condition is true, so we may actually implement instead of the current 1/3 condition we are currently using. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jan 25, 2018 0:02:32 GMT
A very interesting discussion.
In my mind the 12 element army is supposed to represent the major components of a typical army. I always consider these armies as having a variable troop scale. So in one battle they army represents “x”and in another “y”. As more elements are used, as per BBDBA, an element represents a more defined number of troops.
That aside I’m currently mulling over a couple of refights where the standard twelve elements, or the dispositions, don’t exactly fit the standard game. In these situations I’m looking at diverting, only slightly, from 12 elements to a higher number. At this stage perhaps 13 or 14 elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 25, 2018 3:18:41 GMT
I agree, this is a great discussion, all.
For campaigns, we have toyed with having Persia invade Greece with a 15 element army. This we feel reflects the sheer (alleged, ahem...) mass of Persian manpower. Also, we toyed with representing Thermopylae as a siege of a "fort" (well, there was supposedly a wall...) rather than a field battle.
As has been mentioned, numbers can be reflected both with more elements, as well as higher vs lower breakpoint as well. The disadvantage of dissimilar armies is that it breaks the 12-element meme. If on the other hand, you are more system-focused, and see the 12 element system as a starting point for rough proportions and ratios of covered frontage of the army, then breaking the 12 element mold is doable.
One thing I am always cautious of, and I agree with the previous points on this: for campaigns or scenarios, it is very tricky to depart from the 12 element baseline if you want to maximise the number of folks who will play it. Heck you even have to be careful with options! I am learning my Gauls with the all-or-mostly 4Wb option are not the norm!
For this reason, the "extra elements" in my campaigns are more likely to be Hd or Ps (you choose, again allowing maximum accessibility for players).
I for one would just love to see a whole book of historical battles devoted to the 12 element armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jan 25, 2018 8:45:49 GMT
I have played solo DBA campaigns where after a battle each side has to attempt to recruit replacements from the pool of their casualties. This means no army can go above 12 elements but can often be under strength. I only adjust the break point if an army is 6 elements or below by making it 2 elements for a victory. Seems to work for me. My DB-RRR derivative ECW battles often revolve around armies of 10 elements. I leave break point at 4 elements.Again works for me!  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 25, 2018 17:23:08 GMT
I too prefer the ‘12 element’ system, where each block represents one twelfth of the army, no matter it’s size. It does seems a bit daft to have different opponents dividing their armies by different settings. This is why I’ve never really liked the idea of a points system for DBA…each one twelfth element should be roughly equal but with different abilities to another, at least in theory (if only the Ax class, especially 4Ax, weren’t so utterly useless). So how do I represent armies where one side vastly outnumbers the other? For this I use the concept of ‘decorative double bases’. A ‘decorative double base’ is just two ordinary foot bases on a 1 BW x 1 BW card with double-sided sticky tape to hold them in place. It acts just like a single element in all respects…it just looks more impressive. (Think of it as having a -1 because they are poor quality troops, but also gaining a +1 for their unusually deep formation) I also strongly believe in using 'natural formations' when re-creating historical battles. I've seen some people try to recreate Cannae with the Romans in deep formations, only to have the player immediately expand and get their extra elements into a line to outflank the Carthaginians on their very first PIP roll! Here are some examples of 'decorative double bases' in use:- The Battle of Pharsalus, 48 BC, between Caesar and Pompey: (The xxx indicates 'decorative double bases')l Pompeyl xxx xxxl Bd Bdll xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Ps Psl Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Cv LHlRiverll Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd LH Ps ll Bd Bd Bd Bdl Caesar
(Technically, Pompey should be on the left wing of his army.
But I’ve placed him on his right to show how little he did in this battle) The Battle of Cannae, 216 BC, between Hannibal and the Romans, after the skirmishers have fallen-back out of the way: l Varro
l Ps Sp Sp Ps
l
l xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
l Cv Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd Cv
l
River
l
l Cv Cv Bd Ax Ax Ax Ax Bd LH LH
l Hanniball Ps Psl
(Again I’ve moved the generals about.
Varro is with the Triarii, otherwise the loss of both Cv means the Romans are defeated too easily.
And Hannibal has two Bd instead of Sp because his spearmen were verterans, and Bd are better than Sp)…if only I could get the useless Spanish & Gallic 4Ax in the centre to survive as they did in reality! Using 3Bd instead of 4Ax works well (again they are mostly veterans, and veteran 4Ax fight better than ordinary 4Ax). So there you have it. Two engagements where the extra numbers played no part whatsoever in the battle. And just 12 elements each, although one army looks far more impressive and outnumbers the other. The same thing can be done at Gaugamela in 331 BC to make it look like Alexander hasn’t a chance against the Persians. Note that there is a deliberate hidden disadvantage to the ‘decorative double base’… …if repulsed when attacking an enemy flank, they’ll have no room to recoil, so will be destroyed instead. (They are of poor quality after all). Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jan 25, 2018 21:40:42 GMT
A great post Stevie. Your examples of using the smaller game to model historic battle are excellent. I have been considering other ways to model the Romans at Cannae but agree having more stands tends to provide too many advantages for the Romans.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 26, 2018 0:58:42 GMT
Stevie, I used double Persian stands for the vast Persian foot at Gaugamela. A front rank of 4Ax, and a rear rank of 3Ax. They moved and fought as one DBE, but if they got "killed" then only the front rank 4Ax element was removed, leaving a residual 3Ax behind to fight on, as a kind of "remnant". This simulated attrition and the large Persian force quite nicely for this battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 26, 2018 19:03:01 GMT
Good ideas primuspilus (great minds think alike as they say  ) And the Persian Ps could also be on ‘decorative double bases’ as well. But I’m not sure about having the rear 3Ax rank hanging around if the front 4Ax is destroyed. If I was at Gaugamela and saw my front rank being cut down I wouldn’t wait around as a ‘remnant’… I’d be off! However, getting back to Munifex’s first post…sure, why not have a few extra elements if you want. There is one thing though: I wish DBA 3 had added the words “more than” to the victory conditions, so it read:- “The first side that at the end of any bound has now lost a total of more than 4 elements has lost the battle”. Then battles would last just a little bit longer, and I wouldn’t need to move the generals around to keep the fight going. (See my previous example of Cannae…lose the two Cv, one of which is a general, and the Romans only need one more loss to be defeated. Even a lowly Ps would do it. If they had to lose more than 4 element equivalents, things would be much better. Oh well…there is always House Rules I suppose…) And twrnz, since you liked my battle re-creations so much, here is another one for you, just to illustrate the absurdity of merely counting heads when re-creating an historical engagement…Agincourt. We know that the English were about 5-6,000 strong, but figures for the French vary wildly from 15 to 35,000. Even if we take the lowest number, that’s still three times the size of the English army. Just plonking 36 elements against 12 and hoping that the outcome will match reality is not likely to work. Fortunately, DBA is an abstract game, and our elements have an abstract size. So here is my reconstruction of Agincourt, using ‘decorative double bases’ (xxx) to simulate the French numbers:- (the French dismounted men-at-arms are certainly not 'poor quality' in this battle, but they do have a -1 due to fatigue from tramping across mud in heavy armour, and a +1 because of their deep formation) Charles
3Bw 3Bw 3Kn 7Hd 4Cb _______ xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx ______ l 3Kn 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd Cv l l lWood l (------------rough------------) l Wood 4Lb 4Lb l 4Lb 4Lb 4Lb 4Lb 4Lb 4Lb 4Lb l l 4Bd 4Bd 4Bd l l Henry V l_______l l______Here the English have just advanced to the edge of the rough ground (a muddy ploughed field), and begun shooting. The French have two choices…stand there and get shot to death, or attack. Note that when the French mounted enter the Threat Zones of the archers in the woods, they will be pinned. This simulates the English stakes protecting the other longbowmen in the open from direct mounted attack. Although bows can recoil through blades, it would be a good idea for the English to pull back some of their longbows in order to get their men-at-arms blades into the front line just before the French reach them, if they have enough PIP’s. Oh, and as for all those French bows in the rear where they are of no use... ...don't blame me, I wasn't in command! Now it would be nice to have the French camp followers leaving their camp to go around the woods to assault the English camp, but the PIP costs are far too high. Even having them make an ‘off-table flank march’ (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1040/off-table-outflanking-marches) would put too much strain on the French PIP roll, so I doubt if this will be possible (shame). Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 27, 2018 17:19:46 GMT
Stevie, it isn t about representing a front rank literally being cut down. It is representing a steady increase in fatigue and disorder and a steady decrease in cohesion and staying power.
A tad surprised you didn't infer that, given the "markerless" aspect of DBA?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 27, 2018 20:37:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 27, 2018 22:42:05 GMT
Yes, Stevie, many of us DO indeed read what you write! In great detail, I might add...  |
|
)
